5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3)
OMAFilling a public office / removing an office-holder
Filling a public office / removing an office-holder
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
0 upheld (no violation found) · 2 rejected (violation found), out of 2 documents.
Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.
How the Public Access Counselor has treated 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3)
Section 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3) allows a public body to meet in closed session to discuss the selection of a person to fill a public office and, in certain circumstances, the removal or status of an office-holder. The decisions describe it as turning on whether the discussion truly concerns filling an office or removal and whether the body has authority over that office.
In these matters, the PAC reviewed closed-session recordings to test the claimed basis. For the City of DeKalb, it concluded discussion of the City Clerk and recording secretary position did not qualify, including because the council lacked authority to remove the elected clerk. For the City of Oakbrook Terrace, where salary discussion was held under a litigation claim, the office examined the recording and, after the city corrected its minutes, said no further remedial action was necessary.
At a glance: 2 documents from 2022(0 binding opinions, 2 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation) (1).
Recurring issues
- A council discussed the mayor's salary in closed session while citing the litigation exception. (Closed-session discussion of a mayor's salary)
- A council invoked the filling-a-public-office exception to discuss the city clerk and recording secretary position in closed session. (A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position)
- The propriety of a closed session about an elected clerk turned on whether the council had power to remove that clerk. (A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position)
- Correction of meeting minutes was treated as addressing the record of an improper closed-session discussion. (Closed-session discussion of a mayor's salary)
Practical points
- A public body citing section 2(c)(3) should limit closed discussion to filling the office or removal where it has that power.
- A public body should ensure its minutes and recording accurately reflect the closed-session topic and correct them if needed.
- A requester questioning a closed discussion of salaries or clerk matters can point to the recording and minutes as the basis for review.
Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.